Tesla Fires and Firestorms: Let's Breathe and Review Some Car Fire Math 264
cartechboy writes "There are about 150,000 vehicle fires reported every year in the U.S. — about 17 every hour, on average. But when that vehicle fire is a Tesla, the Internet notices. There have now been three fires among roughly 20,000 Tesla Model S electric cars on the road so far. The stock is down, the Feds are asking questions and the Internet is swimming in Tesla news. It may be time to check the facts and review some math (hint: we're looking at roughly one fire for every 33 million miles driven so far) and then breathe. Then look at what we know, what we don't know, and what we should know."
How about just battery fires also? (Score:4, Insightful)
What would be useful would be to also compare the rate of non-Tesla car fires originating from the battery, with that of Teslas.
It would not be advantageous for Teslas to have 'essentially eliminated" the risk of fuel fires, if doing so also include drastically increasing the risk of battery fires.
Re:How about just battery fires also? (Score:5, Insightful)
[Assuming that fuel fires and battery fires are equally weighted as far as severity goes, which is obviously some frictionless-perfect-sphere-style handwaving...]
Let's say with gasoline-powered cars, the risk of fuel fire is 1%, and the risk of battery fire is 0.01%. The odds of your car igniting is 1.01%.
And let's say Tesla has effectively eliminated fuel fires, but it's now 50 times more likely that your battery start a fire. That's a 0.50% possibility of your car igniting.
All other things being equal, I'll take the car that is half as likely to catch on fire.
(Yes, the numbers are all made up, but the point is, I don't care WHAT lights my car on fire; I only care how likely it is that my car will light on fire. Therefore, I think it makes sense to look at all vehicle fires.)
Re:How about just battery fires also? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care WHAT lights my car on fire; I only care how likely it is that my car will light on fire.
Hang on a second. You make it sound like gasoline or batteries set your car on fire, and then your "car" is simply burning. You do realize the gasoline is 99% of what is burning, and not really the "car" itself, right? So there's more to it than the cause or frequency, but the nature of the fire itself. Gasoline is particularly bad because it is a liquid that typically flows all over and around the scene of an accident, then it is the evaporated vapor of the fuel that combusts openly in the air. Essentially, it will spread and consume the entire car and surrounding area because of its liquid nature. Lithium batteries burn in an entirely different manner. It seems likely to me that a Tesla battery fire would be much more contained and thus less dangerous than a gasoline fire.
Your logic is like saying that headaches and strokes are equivalent medical events involving the brain, and you'd rather have strokes since they occur less often. I don't think most people would share that kind of opinion.
Re: How about just battery fires also? (Score:4, Informative)
That's discounting other sources of iginition. Fuel fires are not the primary cause of car fires.
Catalytic converters, voltage regulators, and alternators also play significant roles. Devices used to generate and manage variable electrical loads cause more fires.
Re: (Score:3)
True, but so far (the numbers are small, so don't extrapolate too literally) EV fires appear to be contained and not kill people, while gas vehicle fires destroy entire vehicles and fairly often kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize the gasoline is 99% of what is burning, and not really the "car" itself, right?
No, that's not necessarily true. my parents' garage burned down a couple years ago and totally destroyed a car inside - but the gas tank survived. The car was a shell, every bit burned down to the metal frame, except for the gasoline in the tank. Gas tanks have had 100 years of engineering to help prevent fires. Lithium batteries in cars are a completely new issue, and are going to have their growing pains.
Personally I agree with the point that there is not enough data to support Lion battery cars are a
Re:How about just battery fires also? (Score:5, Informative)
Why on earth would you bother making bunch of wrong assumptions about *my* anecdote?
No, the garage was packed with shit, several other items with gasoline in them (leaf blower, snow blower) literally exploded, and the fire was so hot it warped some glass on the house 30 feet away. There was almost nothing left of the car except the bare metal frame. And the garage definitely "burned down", there was no roof left by the time the firefighters managed to contain it.
And the firefighters themselves said they weren't that worried about the gas tank exploding, since automobile tanks are designed to withstand high heat and pressure in the tank, ie. it was NOT the exception but the rule. Unless the tank it punctured the gas in it was unlikely to ignite. At least go look it up instead of making it up - the majority of car fires (even in "on and running" cars) involve the engine compartment (gas in the lines, oil, etc) and the upholstery, etc, but not the gas tank itself (I saw a stat on NFPA that quoted ~10% of car fires involve the fuel tank). Which was my point in countering the comment "the gasoline is 99% of what is burning and not really the car itself", which is false in more cases than not.
But you probably know more commenting on an anecdote without any information than firefighters who see this all the time or associations whose job is to minimize fire risks, of course...
Re: (Score:2)
Factor in the survivability of the fires as well. Gasoline fires tend to escalate rather quickly.
Re:How about just battery fires also? (Score:5, Informative)
Remove your biases for a moment and read TFA. All this bullshit doom and gloom is nonsense propaganda, or at least most of it. Most likely, brought to you by several groups of people that don't benefit (enough) from EVs, and stand to lose a whole lot of money if they begin to be successful.
Accident 1. It apparently occurred after the Model S ran over a piece of road debris later described as a "curved section that fell off a semi-trailer." That item punched a 3-inch hole through the 1/4-inch-thick armor plate protecting the pack, with a force of 25 tons, according to a report by Tesla. The car alerted the driver of a fault, and he pulled over and exited the car.
Emphasis is mine. It should not take a rocket scientist to guess that this is a big fucking piece of steel. It may not have made your Combustion car catch fire, but your car would have most taken tremendous damage at least. Your car does not have 1/4-inch armor plating, so you may not have lived through it.
Accident 2. It apparently occurred after the Model S driver jumped a curb, took out several feet of a concrete wall, and then hit a tree.
Ever hear of Michael Hastings who died in a new Mercedes that hit a tree and caught fire? It happened very recently, so you can save the "it never happens with gas cars" lines. I don't think the mention of the guy being drunk makes a lick of difference to the point. The point is, this guy was driving very fast and crashed into a bunch of hard stuff.
Accident 3. It too apparently occurred after the Model S ran over a piece of road debris, this time reportedly described by police as a tow hitch that pierced the undercarriage. Tesla issued this statement: “We have been in contact with the driver, who was not injured and believes the car saved his life. Our team is on its way to Tennessee to learn more about what happened in the accident.”
So once again, we have a massive piece of road debris that would have totaled any other car on the road as the culprit, and as of yet an unknown cause of fire. Note the drivers opinion that the car saved his life and received no injuries. Sure, he's not an expert but you were not there so are not an expert either.
All this shit keeps pointing to some people wanting bad press for EVs because, you know.. we kill a whole lot of people to get this oil that should be able to transfer a good chunk of your money to them!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem isn't whether the car would of or would not have taken damage. The problem is that a fire is capable of spreading and causing serious other problems outside of the car. Suppose the damage happened but the fire didn't until the car was parked inside your garage that is connected to your home.
But more appropriately, the solution to the fires may be found in the investigations of the situation where something simple like an automatic resetting breaker between battery banks could contain the damage
Re: (Score:3)
The problem isn't whether the car would of or would not have taken damage. The problem is that a fire is capable of spreading and causing serious other problems outside of the car. Suppose the damage happened but the fire didn't until the car was parked inside your garage that is connected to your home.
This is actually a really good point. With a gas car if you have a gas leak you can smell it. If you go to park your car in the garage and your gas tank is leaking you will smell it and move the car outside of the garage pretty quickly. However, a battery pack that is damaged could be slowly heating up and you would never know until it exploded or caught fire.
I don't know how Tesla implemented the battery packs in their cars. I would hope that they would have implemented smart batteries that would warn
Re: (Score:3)
The only valid "what if" is comparing the incidents to a combustion car, because that's what the hype is about. You can't claim "what if the car caught fire in the garage hours later" because that hypothetical NEVER HAPPENED!
The only reason to bitch about the fire is to present the concept that Tesla does not care about the fires and will never fix them. That, is idiocy! Stop and look at everything in comparison and context with other vehicles.
Example 2 is very clear, crashing into trees will cause combu
Re: (Score:2)
What would be useful would be to also compare the rate of non-Tesla car fires originating from the battery, with that of Teslas.
How in the hell would that be useful, when the Tesla batteries are the Tesla "fuel source"??? Think about it, that comparison would make absolutely no sense at all!
Re: (Score:2)
It is more complicated then that. The comparison needs to involve details such as age of the vehicle and modifications/repair work done to it. Most vehicles that are new (within a few years) will not catch fire in accidents in which the occupants are not seriously injured. Most vehicle fires in cars not involved in serious crashes that I am aware of are generally the result if improperly performed maintenance, neglected repairs, or modifications and typically happen to cars that are aged.
If new cars, unmodi
anti-Tesla media hype (Score:3)
Much less likely to be oil industry, and much more likely to be financial institutions shorting the stock.
The threat to oil industry is slow and decades away---to them the problem is access to high quality oil fields currently held by nations and capital costs for fracking.
By contrast a 2 week hype/whinge cycle is perfect for a hedge fund.
OK, here is some math. (Score:5, Informative)
According to the US Bureau of Transportation,there are over 250 million cars on the road in the US. There are 150,000 fires in those vehicles a year __according to the OP__.
There are 20,000 Tesla cars, with 3 fires.
Relative risk = ( 3 / 20000 ) / ( 150000 / 250000000 ) = 0.00015 / 0.0006 = 0.25.
Get a Tesla, so as to avoid vehicle fires. Maybe? Depends on whether the reported stats are correct.
Re:OK, here is some math. (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally conventional cars burn when they are old. Calculate how many cars up to one year old are burning in comparison to Tesla.
Re:OK, here is some math. (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, you could also limit the comparison to cars costing twice the average price of cars when new - those might be expected to receive better maintenance.
Re:OK, here is some math. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. With a straight face, they cite statistics comparing a new $100,000 Tesla with an old beater that is held together with duct tape and probably worth a few hundred bucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. With a straight face, they cite statistics comparing a new $100,000 Tesla with an old beater that is held together with duct tape and probably worth a few hundred bucks.
But the risk of battery puncture and fire doesn't get worse as the Tesla ages, so a 10 year old Tesla shouldn't have any different fire risk than a brand new Tesla, so it doesn't seem unfair to compare across all cars.
Re: (Score:2)
But the risk of battery puncture and fire doesn't get worse as the Tesla ages
Why do you think so? LI-Ion batteries experience significant mechanical deformation as they are charged/discharged. There is a lot of vibration that is transferred into the battery from the road. Old batteries require longer charging, at higher temperatures. The numbers will not be the same.
There is yet another issue. Batteries are essentially strips of plastic tape that have goo smeared onto them, and then the strips are roll
Re: (Score:3)
But the risk of battery puncture and fire doesn't get worse as the Tesla ages
Why do you think so? LI-Ion batteries experience significant mechanical deformation as they are charged/discharged. There is a lot of vibration that is transferred into the battery from the road. Old batteries require longer charging, at higher temperatures. The numbers will not be the same.
There is yet another issue. Batteries are essentially strips of plastic tape that have goo smeared onto them, and then the strips are rolled up to form an element. There is not much accuracy in this process, and not much repeatability. Some batteries may serve longer than expected, and some may fail prematurely. Some failures can cause fires. A gas tank is a precision instrument, compared to a battery. It can be inspected for leaks, but a battery cannot be inspected in a similar way - there are too many sealed elements, and each of them is manufactured by the lowest bidder. We haven't seen yet battery fires in Teslas that are caused by an intact battery. But as more cars are put onto the road, and as they accumulate more miles, this may become an issue.
Sure, it's possible that a completely different failure mode will cause fires, but that can't be extrapolated from fires caused by punctures.
Re: (Score:2)
True the risk is still relatively low per mile driven. Might be more than typical for gas powered cars though of similar price/age. Just a guess why: a lot of car fires are caused by electrical problems given bigger electrical currents an electric car would be more likely to arc and have sufficient current in an arc to start a fire. That said there probably were more accidents getting into and out of gas stations for the equivalent road miles driven than either electric or gas cars have fires.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand... (Score:3)
On the other hand, ICEs and their gasoline tanks have been through much more real-world testing, many more iterations of safety refinement based on real world experience. Perhaps a more fair comparison is to look back to the 1920s and see how often new luxury cars from that era experienced fires.
Tesla is obviously aware of this problem and has a strong incentive to make their packs robust. Gas tanks in race cars have things like rubber bladders, honeycombs, and perhaps other things I've never heard of. I
Re: (Score:2)
Better per mile driven, and taking into account relative driving styles, maintenance efforts, car ages, etc.
There's really not enough data to say that these electric cars are safer, merely a lack of data to confirm that they're either significantly less or significantly more safe, comparing like for like.
I think Musk is the worst sort of businessperson, from useless money-sink Paypal to sucking off the government space programme teat. But I wouldn't mind Tesla cars approaching the mainstream automobile mark
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to compare all the models, not just Tesla compared to the average of all other cars. If one brand of cars happen to catch fires all the time, Tesla could be the second worst and still come out better than average.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably going to clear Tesla (Score:5, Interesting)
In all 3 cases, it seems like the fire was caused by severe damage to the car from an outside source rather than a fault in the car. In all 3 cases the car's design prevented injury to the driver from the fire rather than contributing to the fire. And, let's face it, if we investigated every conventional model of car that was involved in 3 fires in a single month, every single model would be under investigation continuously. So, the people panicking over this and getting rid of Tesla stock, and the people pointing to this to impugn Tesla, need to get a grip. There's other reasons not to like Tesla, but it's not because their cars are in any way unsafe (or at least nomore unsafe than ~2 tons of steel barreling along at between 80 and 110 feet per second carrying between 10 and 30 gallons of highly flammable fuel (which forms explosive vapors under normal environmental conditions) in a thin sheet-metal tank with no armor or other protection against penetration).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
..and the people pointing to this to impugn Tesla, need to get a grip.
Nah, I suspect those people have a very firm grip on the facts and know exactly what they are doing!
Re: (Score:2)
While we're talking about apples-to-oranges comparisons, I don't care much about "trivial" fires that don't cause any personal harm. They're rare enough to be an annoyance for the insurance company to deal with, but not a big deal for the overall cost. For example it's much more expensive to have a small crash with a modern car that has huge, soft crumple zones than an old rigid car as much less gets bent out of place. But if you're in a solid crash you'd want to be in the modern car that diverges all that
Re: (Score:2)
Much less expensive for your car budget. How about your whiplash budget?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In all three cases the fire was caused by an event that rarely causes a fire in a conventionally powered car.
In the second case it was a direct hit at high speed against an immovable target. Fires are actually relatively common in non electric cars, and fire or not death is relatively common in these situations. The driver escaped unscathed in this case, though.
In the first and second case the case was hit very hard, again at high speeds, by a large object on the road that punctured through their shielding and hit the battery. And yes, the combustion engine cars usually do not have their energy source in the f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Man, your breath must really stink cause you're surely talking out your ass.
In all three cases the fire was caused by an event that rarely causes a fire in a conventionally powered car. That it was an outside source is irrelevant to this, as it's a normal hazard of operating a car over the road - regardless of it's power source.
In the first place the second fire involved a high speed collision into several objects. That could definitely has a reasonable chance to cause fire in any vehicle. As to the other 2 fires you seem to have some statistics that prove a similar incident wouldn't cause a fire in a gas car? It certainly seems to me running over something that has enough force to puncture "a 3-inch hole through the 1/4-inch-thick armor plate" would have
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the contrary. In a conventionally powered car, the fuel tank is located in the rear of the car. In the case of incidents like the Tesla fires, the fuel tank is protected by the entire length of the car , while the Tesla's battery is only minimally protected despite it's more exposed position to such hazards.
But also consider - you have more influence over what the front of your car hits, you have less influence over what hits you from behind (especially when stationary).
So it may not be correct to automatically conclude that having a fuel tank in the rear is the safer option.
I'm not claiming that it's not safer, but I personally trust myself not to collide with an object in front of me rather than some other fool slamming into my car from behind (or the from any direction in for that matter)....
Re: (Score:2)
the fuel tank is protected by the entire length of the car , while the Tesla's battery is only minimally protected despite it's more exposed position to such hazards.
When you run over something, it's pretty much up to chance as to what it hits under your car, how it tumbles, when it gets flicked up, and what gets punctured as a result.
Also considering that the lithium battery is self contained , and not particularly explosive as such, and tends to (from what we've seen) burn in-situ and not spread fuel all
Re: (Score:3)
It is a new technology....Tesla will figure it out and make fixes where needed.
Re: (Score:2)
So we really don't have a good comparative number.
That's true. I would hope sufficiently accurate stats are kept on car fires to make such a calculation, but I wouldn't bet on it. The "older cars are more likely to catch fire" is just speculation at this point.
What we do have though is enough information to say that "Tesla is a deathtrap" is way overblown.
Tesla fire is good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, always buy on bad news!
dropped cigarettes, intentional etc. vs. spontaneo (Score:3, Informative)
The "all car fires" stat includes dropped cigarettes that smolder, cars intentionally set on fire, etc.
How many regular cars light on fire on the highway after running over a debris such as a hitch?
Also, how many do you want to have on fire? How many would ignite if there was a shield that would flex rather than puncture?
Re: (Score:2)
How many would ignite if there was a shield that would flex rather than puncture?
Flex where? If it's up against the battery, when it flexes it will compress the cells, causing exactly the kind of damage that causes fires...
not my department, but I visit that department (Score:2)
>. Flex where? If it's up against the battery, when it flexes it will compress the cells, causing exactly the kind of damage that causes fires...
Intuitively, you'd think to make a car safer, you'd make it stronger. In fact, you reduce G forces by designing it to crush - crumple zones. How can the shielding or battery positioning be improved? I don't know, but I hope Tesla's engineers are asking those questions.
At Texas Transportation Institute (part of the agency I work for) they're still crash testin
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=nissan+leaf [google.com]
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=tesla+model+s [google.com]
Just by looking at those two cars, which one would you expect to be involved in far more high speed collisions, and hence large impacts involving the battery, due to it being driven by idiot hoons?
Re: (Score:2)
The "all car fires" stat includes dropped cigarettes that smolder, cars intentionally set on fire, etc.
Exactly.
How many regular cars light on fire on the highway after running over a debris such as a hitch?
NFPA report [nfpa.org]. Same source as the other stats cited in the article, not mentionning the causes was a simple oversight, right ? I didn't check the full PDF reports yet.
So, three fires for Tesla vehicles, one of them caused by "collision or overturn", and the two other by... malfunction ?
There is also bias as "older vehicles were more likely to have a fire caused by mechanical or electrical failures.".
I'm surprised arson counts for "only" 8 percent of reported fires.
Anyway, Musk and the writer's stats
Re: (Score:2)
the two other by... malfunction ?
Striking something hard enough to punch through a 1/4" steel plate is not called a "malfunction", it's called a car accident.
Re: (Score:2)
The "all car fires" stat would then also include Tesla cars in the cases where fires were due to cigarettes or intentionally. Even disrgarding that considering Teslas alone having burned vs these stats is unfair to Tesla cars; They still come out on top. I had a car fire after just parking it on the side of the road in autum -- there were leaves. I checked, and my gassoline tank is still on the bottom of my car, so what is your point about the debris bit, mate? Are you trying to leverage confirmation b
huh? No idea, but you're horny for Tesla? (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.
I asked a couple of questions:
How many gas cars light on fire as opposed to being lit on fire?
How can electric cars be made safer?
It's not clear what you're trying to say, so tell me if I have this right:
You have no idea what the answer is to either question, but "Tesla comes out on top". Why? Because Tesla man! Fuck yeah Tesla motherfucker! Tesla kicks ass man!
Do I have that about right?
Re: (Score:2)
I've personally frantically tried to waive down an interstate driver that had 10' flames running along the bottom of his car (he had no idea he was on fire because gas fires in the early stage are nearly smokeless). That driver barely survived, the car was almost fully engulfed before he could even stop. IIRC he has first degree burns to his legs. The car was a smouldering ember that was 95% burned out before the fire department even got there.
If you haven't seen a gas car burn you are either ignorant of wh
only on Slashdot (Score:2)
I asked how many cars get lit on fire (arson, smoldering cigarettes, etc.) versus how many light themselves on fire.
You think I claimed cars can't burn. Only on Slashdot.
The oil lobby (Score:4, Insightful)
It is no surprise that the oil lobby is jumping on this. Even when in reality it is more dangerous to be in a car that runs on oil or gasoline than lion batteries. While batteries are not risk free, they are considerable lower risk than using oil and gasoline cars.
Re: (Score:2)
I would not be shocked at all to think that Tesla has so many enemies that the very lives of the owners and managers of the company are at risk of murder. Big industries do not like to fail and Tesla has such a superior product that there is almost no reason to buy any other brand. Not only are the Detroit based companies upset but the gas and oil industries don't love Tesla one little bit. Then to top it off there are tons of dealers that hate Tesla and on top of that conventional garages and mec
Re: (Score:3)
It is no surprise that the oil lobby is jumping on this
What evidence do we have that the oil lobby is jumping on this?
Re: (Score:2)
About nr 1: I don't know about this batteries. As there are sometimes flaws in them and for that same flaw they often burn mobile phones, laptops and such things. Batteries are improving with time, but it is going to take several more years until something new appears.
In regarding nr 2: While this is extremely difficult to trace due to shell within a shell holdings (and sometimes shell within a double shell in a tax haven) this is happening. As the oil industry did destroy the public transport in the U.S at
Ancient safety engineering principles (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Stored energy is a hazard
2. Humans are fragile
3. Therefore create barriers between humans and stored energy.
Any self-powered vehicle with useful range needs a lot of stored energy. This can be in a form that drips and pours out of any opening in can find, like gasoline, or it can be chemical energy in a solid battery.
Tesla engineers implemented point 3 so well that the guy in Auburn opened the door and walked away from the uncontrolled release of energy happening in front of him.
Complete non-story, until they start catching fire spontaneously on the road like my neighbor's New Beetle.
Two irrelevant statistical numbers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
stats for normal cars
The stats used include the entire US fleet, including every neglected, run down, ancient, fire prone junker on the road with their untold accumulations of poorly done repairs, low quality replacement parts and ill-considered modifications. A legitimate comparison would consider only new manufacture gasoline cars.
That's not what we have here. What we have here are Tesla advocates advocating. Nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Which I'd guess have much higher failure rates then comparable aged cheaper cars: a couple reasons: they tend to push the engineering envelope more than the latest Civic or equivalent, and probably more importantly: people that own them are probably more likely to drive (even if only occasionally) like douches (as my father used to say about his old boat of a Bel Air, you got to run the engine out every once in a while for "maintenance" reasons).
Oh, the Humanity! (Score:2)
Tesla down, Bitcoin down, what's Slashdot going to push when they fold?
Re: (Score:2)
Buy Buy BUY!
Let them hype all they want (Score:5, Funny)
-T
going per mile is not a great measure (Score:3)
Since the biggest factors in car fires (mechanical failure, electrical failure, being in another fire and arson) all are active not just when the car is moving but when it is still.
The number of fires expected for Teslas in collisions at this point in time is about 1.25. We're looking at 2 or 3 right now (depending on whether you count Mexico).
This is above average and thus a valid reason to investigate.
Some math:
99.7% of collisions do not result in fire. About 11M cars are in collisions per year in the US, out of 250M cars. So about 4.4% of cars are in collisions per year on the road and 0.0132% of cars will catch fire due to collisions in a year on the road.
Tesla has about 20,000 cars out there, for about 6 months (on average), or about 10,000 car-years so far on Teslas. You would expect thus 1.32 car fires so far due to collision.
We have 2 or 3 depending on whether you count the Mexico fire. There is a case for not counting it, since all the other stats I list are US-only.
Given that car fires of all types rise with the age of the car since the fire prevention mechanism age and become less effective, having 2 or 3 car fires due to collision in 10,000 car years is perhaps alarming.
Either way, despite what greencarreports says, this rate of collision fires seems high enough to warrant an investigation, even with the small sample size.
Re: (Score:2)
The after-market has an easy fix for this problem (Score:2)
http://www.locomotivegeneral.com/generalparts/images/CowCatcher.jpg [locomotivegeneral.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[citation needed]
Flaming Citation (Score:2)
Seems Citations had a little fire problem themselves, at least according to Jalopnik. Wiki does say they had shitty brakes and steering issues but no mention of fire.
Exactly (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, ok, you're not going to look it up so here's the link,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE_Mizar [wikipedia.org]
"Smolinski and his associate, Harold Blake, were killed in the
resulting fiery crash."
Re:American cars in general... (Score:5, Insightful)
... catch fire more than Japanese or European cars. Its got nothing to do with fuel type. Its down to poor engineering.
Or simply decades of relentless improvement.
The first automobile patent in the United States was granted to Oliver Evans in 1789. (google search)
The first gas powered car was invented by Karl Friedrich Benz around 1885 to 1886 in Germany....(google search)
Woops before gas power there was steam and electricity.
Still this is interesting and important if you are an engineer but
it is clear the industry is 'after' Tesla. The real threat to the auto industry
is the Tesla distribution model that has all the dealers in the US up in arms.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no more after tesla then Ralph Nader was after GM when he insisted in safety improvements that doomed the Vega and led to the class action lawsuit against Ford over the gas tanks in the pintos which GM also had an issue with later in their side mounted fuel tanks.
There are known hazards that shouldn't cause fires or risk of death to anyone. These known hazards do include road debris and collisions with the later being far more difficult to protect against. The investigations should not be seen as an at
Re:American cars in general... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not unless the gas tank was moved to the front of the vehicle. And even then, if it didn't catch fire, it likely would have only leaked. The batteries actually create heat and catch fire.
I know people are scared of gas but gas cars actually have a few safety system built into them specifically because there were problems with fire in the past. This is no different so I do not understand why all the fanboyism trying to but but but everything. When gas cars went to electric fuel pumps, the fuel kept pumping with the key on and engine off so they put inertia sensors in them to cut the pumps if an impact was detected. There is also a circuit in most electronic fuel injected cars that will not allow the pump to run unless the motor is running. It measures the spark and if it is not present, outside of energizing when the key is first turned on, it will not pump the fuel. When we went to electronic fuel injection, the head pressure was at one point actually increased so a fuel line leak would cause the car to either stop or run so poorly the driver would pull over. The fuel tanks are designed to contain spillage in the vast majority of collisions and are tucked away so that it takes a serious impact to damage them. There are even anti siphon valves on the fuel line in order to prevent the fuel from flowing if a line is cut and and the car is off.
Most of these safety features were designed and implemented due to the small risk of fires over several dozen years. So we have primarily one manufacturer of EVs and it happens that there are some fires when specific problems happen. The solution is not to say, well, other cars can do it to, but to find a way to prevent it from happening or determine if it is such a rare position that it doesn't happen often. Maybe something as simple as replacing the aluminum shielding with a stronger composite material or perhaps steel and biting the weight disadvantage is the answer. Perhaps using rubber bushings in the plate in order to allow some of the impact energy to be displaced instead of all being absorbed is the answer but we will not know unless we understand the mechanisms causing the fires first.
I will repeat The investigations should not be seen as an attack but rather as a way to improve safety.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't there an armoured plate under the Tesla battery pack? Hitting a piece of metal at highway speeds might be dangerous in more immediately hazardous ways in another vehicle.
Holy shit, did you really just ignore the entire point the GP made in an extremely well thought-out post?
We shouldn't be asking, "are gas cars just as risky or more under the same conditions?" Maybe they are, but who the hell cares? The point is that even if every single other car out there would have killed all occupants inside and exploded taking out dozens of bystanders given the same accident while all the Model S did was catch on fire...there's still an opportunity here to see if Tesla can make impro
Re:American cars in general... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real threat to the auto industry is the Tesla distribution model that has all the dealers in the US up in arms.
Exactly.
Every dealer is gunning for Tesla, even while the big US automakers and the Japan automakers are secretly hoping Tesla can prove
this distribution model works. They would all secretly love to sell direct.
But dealers are going to point out every flaw with Tesla to everyone who will listen.
In the meantime The Volt, Leaf, and Tesla will probably all add Kevlar battery protection, thermal breaks between battery segments and go about their business just as Boeing did.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:5, Interesting)
There are about 150,000 vehicle fires reported every year in the U.S. â" about 17 every hour, on average. But when that vehicle fire is a Tesla, the Internet notices "
True, there are over one hundreds thousand car fires per year, and that shouldn't even be any surprise, for they carry HIGHLY COMBUSTIBLE HYDRO-CARBON FUEL, - such as gasoline or diesel, - in them !
On the other hand, Tesla cars, being electrically powered, do NOT need gasoline, or do they??
Comparing the big number of hydrocarbon-powered vehicles which caught fire with the 3 cases of Tesla cars is, to put it very mildly, totally misleading !!
Most car fires are the result of defective or worn wiring. Gasoline catches fires as the result of a collision. Diesel generally won't catch fire since it's the same as home heating oil, which only burns when sprayed as an aerosol. When a new expensive electric vehicle catches fire, it is news. Maybe not stop-the-presses news, but news nonetheless.
Bias, plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
When a new expensive electric vehicle catches fire, it is news. Maybe not stop-the-presses news, but news nonetheless.
Yup. Comes down to observer bias, just like nuclear energy. A nuke plant has an accident that results in a tiny leak of radioactive steam (resulting in exactly 0 deaths)? OH NOES!! THE WURST THING EVAR!!!!! But if a coal power plant spits out literally TONS of CO2, ash, soot (and even radioactive isotopes that were in the coal!), and that's a "Meh".
Re: (Score:3)
Most car fires are the result of defective or worn wiring. Gasoline catches fires as the result of a collision. Diesel generally won't catch fire since it's the same as home heating oil, which only burns when sprayed as an aerosol. When a new expensive electric vehicle catches fire, it is news.
I've witnessed two that happened for other reasons.
80s Chrysler with an engine block made of such poor steel that the valve cover bolts (which are under very little stress) pulled from the block, dripping oil down the back of the block onto the exhaust manifold catching the car on fire. The hood release cable was carefully placed so that it's casing melted, the hood couldn't be opened to extinguish the flames and the car was totaled.
Autozone sold a hose fitting for fuel line use that actually melted i
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:5, Insightful)
Was the author getting any financial supprt from the Tesla car company ?
Really, you're going with that? Who paid you to post that? (So sick of people claiming anyone with a different opinion must be paid to post. I'd be rich if I had a hundred bucks for every time I'm accused of being Paid by X, only to be accused of being paid by X's competitors on the next post, often in the same thread.). You've been around here long enough to know better.
What the fuel source is has nothing to do with the statistics at hand. Fires per mile traveled is as good a measure as any other.
The fact remains that every self automobile has a combustible substance on board. Some burn less than others. Comparing power sources for safety is a perfectly normal thing to do, and when you do it, electricity looks way safer than gasoline.
Why is that so hard for your to see?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've missed the point as I predicted others would. /. would. /.er is equipped to take in his mouthful, but I'm afraid he lost the mildly interested, the fanboys, the wannabees and the skimmers. Outside of /. his logic would be lost without an editor.
I can see the authors point, but I doubt that his target beyond
The average
Essentially "Comparing the big number of hydrocarbon-powered vehicles which caught fire with the 3 cases of Tesla cars is, to put it very mildly, totally misleading !!" is kind o
Re:TFA is a Tesla PR piece (Score:4, Interesting)
" There are about 150,000 vehicle fires reported every year in the U.S. â" about 17 every hour, on average. But when that vehicle fire is a Tesla, the Internet notices "
What is the real intention behind the above quote?
Was the author getting any financial supprt from the Tesla car company ?
Well, what is your intention? Are you getting any financial support from the oil industry? while there is no evidence one way or the other, some people have been saying that Taco Cowboy is being paid by Exxon. Even more so, some people have been claiming that Taco Cowboy may even have secretly donated to the Obama campaign.
All of that just kidding, I have no reason to believe that you are anything but honest and upstanding.
So now that we have gotten the thinly veiled accusations of paid shilldom and nefarious scofflawism out of the way, what might be reasons?
The reason is, that just like any other form of non-standard transportation or energy, every non-perfect outcome is trotted out and displayed as the utter failure of the technology. A Tesla catches on fire, showing that we need to abandon the technology. Just as Germany is more successful with solar power, because Germany is sunnier than the USA. Fox News told me so.
At the very least, how many gasoline vehicle fires have been posted and argued on Slashdot as indicative of the utter failure of gasoline powered engines?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unlike fires, sudden uncommanded acceleration and crashing is not a common occurrence in cars.
Re:Thank you for the submission (Score:4, Insightful)
When a car randomly ignores the driver's controls and accelerates and kills people, that's a design flaw.
When a car is in a major accident, suffers severe damage, and the driver can pull over and get out safely, that's not an obvious design flaw. Any car will fail given sufficient damage, so the question is how the car handled the damage, and how the passengers came out. So far, the Tesla looks pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
How many ordinary cars would catch fire if they contained no gasoline? That would be the better comparison.
Isn't that like asking how many Teslas would catch fire if they had no battery?
Re: (Score:2)
How many ordinary cars would catch fire if they contained no gasoline? That would be the better comparison.
Assuming you only drive downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
Best wishes anyway,
-Energy
Re: (Score:2)
Underhood electrical fires are common, and have been the source of repeated scandals regarding Ford truck and SUV cruise control switch and ignition fires.
When you ignite a modern vehicle, the plastic makes for an impressive fire long before it reaches the fuel tank.
http://jalopnik.com/5381540/cruise-control-fire-recall-expanded-to-fords-largest-ever [jalopnik.com]